[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11331-11340]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    KING COVE ROAD LAND EXCHANGE ACT


                             General Leave

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on H.R. 218.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 454 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 218.
  The Chair appoints the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer) to preside 
over the Committee of the Whole.

                              {time}  0958


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the

[[Page 11332]]

consideration of the bill (H.R. 218) to provide for the exchange of 
Federal land and non-Federal land in the State of Alaska for the 
construction of a road between King Cove and Cold Bay, with Mr. Palmer 
in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered read the 
first time.
  The gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I include in the Record my statement 
on the ABCs of Izembek.
  Alaska's ardently asking for action and assistance to acquire acute 
acres to always allow actual access across areas and assuredly avert 
atrocious aviation accidents after appalling administrative blockades 
on building basic boulevards between beautiful bays before blizzards.
  The bill doesn't bombard birds like Black Brants because Congress can 
carefully craft conveyances to create consistent courses for certain 
care in this Cove community. Construction cop outs and crumbling 
commitments cause a cacophony of complex concerns and constitute 
considerable consternation when crossing channels in choppy conditions. 
Don's diligently doting on his district, dutifully demanding 
demonstrable developments daily so the Department doesn't dawdle on 
their domain. Despite dangerous dashes and emergency evacuations, 
expanding elevated environmental evaluations exploded expenses. Exact 
exchanges exempt events to enhance embarking on equally enjoyable exits 
in eleven expanses. Frankly, fifty-five frigid flights fleeing fast 
from freezing fields in furious flurries found frighteningly few fancy 
facilities for fearful families.
  Geese gradually got generally greedy, grimly generating genuine grief 
on giant goals of going great grounds on gravel and grabbing glory from 
good glacial gateways.
  Historically, hovercraft hijinks harmfully hampered hurrying to 
hospitals and hobbled healing, harpooning hope and hardening hardships 
near the harsh harbors. The House must hastily have a helpful hand in 
halting havoc and hindering hefty hazards for Izembek inhabitants 
instead of idling indefinitely. Interior's indecision impeded 
infrastructure and informally interrupted implementing instant 
improvements, isolating irate individuals in increasingly impassible 
journeys. Jewell jumped into jeopardy when justifying juxtapositions 
and jarring, jolty jaunts from King Cove that keep killing kind kin 
without kindling key kernels of keen knowledge.
  King Cove lacks life-saving lanes linking lonesome localities on land 
while lofty liberals lamely lament losing limited landscapes and maroon 
many who might make mends with medical ministration. Masterful 
mandatory medivacs must make miraculous moves after miniscule mainland 
migrations. Narrow native neighborhoods need necessary navigable 
networks now that nasty neglect notched nineteen needless obituaries. 
Other offered options outlined aren't okay or optimal for opening 
outbound opportunities over a one-lane, non-paved preferred path across 
a pulchritudinous peninsula. Patients patiently practice peacefully 
praying to postpone pain and postmortems while partisan panels 
prioritize protecting a percent of the preserve over the perishing 
population.
  Perhaps people quietly question this quixotic quandary, quickly 
quarreling over quality, quaint routes. Resilient rural Refuge 
residents require really rapid resolutions to reliably ride on 
requisite roads routinely in rough situations. Seventy segments of 
street are still stationed in the sanctuary, so small sections won't 
subvert the surroundings. The State swap saves the site's sheltered 
status while swelling up safety and security for this scorned society. 
1,000 tormented townsmen tempt their tombs in terrifying travels. They 
take threatening treks that traverse the tough tundra between the two 
towns in treacherous temperatures. United, we urgently untie this 
unbelievably unjust ultimatum for a unique unwinding of unfortunately 
unreliable voyages.
  Valid in vibrant victory we venture to vote to viciously vanish 
vanity and vacate this wrongdoing. When we want wins, wavering 
willfully won't work. We weigh wishes of wilderness with wild winter 
weather while ways wane for wandering within windstorms. Xylophone.
  Yeah, yeah, yeah, you're yawning and yearning for me to yield and 
stop yapping like a yelling yahoo while you're still young. So I'll 
zig-zag and zoom past zany zealots in Zen like Ryan Zinke.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young), the author of the bill, the only 
Representative Alaska has here on this floor, and someone who 
understands this issue because he has been dealing with it for a number 
of years.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that should have 
been settled a long time ago.
  In 2009, this Congress passed a land exchange piece of legislation, 
very similar to this, and we made one mistake. We did put into it the 
ability to have the Fish and Wildlife Service make recommendations. 
Even then, the recommendations were on a positive side.
  The last administration decided, under the Secretary of the Interior, 
not to build an 11-mile road to save my constituents, the Aleut people 
from King Cove, in favor of a goose, and the people who live in King 
Cove weren't really considered.

                              {time}  1000

  Now, this is a road that is 11 miles long that goes not through the 
Izembek Refuge, but through some of the areas, mostly just along the 
edge. And the argument you will hear is that they will disturb the 
geese. You will hear it disturbs the eelgrass that the geese and the 
loons live on. The road will bother them.
  It is ironic; the refuge itself, which this refuge is not a new area, 
it has been inhabited by man, frankly, in the last generation, and they 
built about 70 miles of road to supply a military base called Cold Bay, 
which is the airport we are trying to seek this road to connect it with 
King Cove.
  They actually take tourists that arrive in Cold Bay and take the bus 
and go out the same road, not the one we want to build, but a road 
right next to the so-called lagoon and the eelgrass for the tourists. 
And for some reason, tourists don't bother geese. That is what I can't 
quite understand. But it is all right for them to do that, but not 
allow the people of King Cove to save their lives.
  Since the refusal to build this road, 19 people, my constituents, 
Aleut people from King Cove, have died because they could not be 
evacuated to the airport so you could fly them out.
  Now, some people will say, well, they have got an airport. Yes, 1,600 
feet, winds are blowing 90 miles an hour, you try to get off. Or put 
yourselves on a boat and go across in 30-foot waves.
  And you will hear, well, we built them and they got a hovercraft. 
They never wanted it. They knew it wouldn't work. The Clinton 
administration said, oh, this is our solution and it is better than a 
road that would disturb the geese, so they accepted the use of it, and 
it did fail.
  The hovercraft does not work, yet we will have an amendment later on, 
the area that did not ask for it is going to be requested to pay the 
money back. I didn't hear anybody, by the way, say, because a levee 
failed and we put money into it, they had to pay the money back.
  So let's really consider what we are talking about here. We are 
talking about 11 miles, single lane, gravel-covered road to provide 
access to Cold Bay for people in the community who do not have access 
to a hospital, which is 600 miles away in Anchorage.
  We had one lady evacuated at a cost of $250,000 by the Coast Guard. 
The helicopter crashed, and she lost her life.
  We had two other elders that went across with a crab boat. They had 
to put the people into a crab pot because there was no way to get to 
this airport.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting to my fellow colleagues, let's do 
what is right. This does no harm to the refuge. It, in fact, saves 
lives, gives them an opportunity to take and experience the medical 
care that all the rest of us have. Let's do the right thing today.
  Let's not be caught into special interests that say it is going to 
hurt the refuge. I know many even got phone calls: Oh, this is going to 
be terrible.
  The truth of the matter is it is not terrible. It is the right thing 
to do. So I am asking my colleagues, let's vote ``yes'' on this bill. 
Let's vote ``no'' on the amendments. Let's do what is right today in 
the House of Representatives.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page 11333]]

  Today we are being asked to mandate a land exchange that will put a 
road through a designated wilderness area inside the Izembek National 
Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. If that sounds familiar, that is because we 
have been down this road before.
  After years of prodding from the Alaska delegation, the Public Land 
Management Act of 2009 authorized this exchange and the eventual 
construction of the road. However, that 2009 authorization was 
contingent upon a determination by the Secretary of the Interior that 
the road was in the public interest.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service then spent nearly 5 years preparing a 
full environmental impact statement in order to analyze the 
environmental impacts of the proposed road, and to determine if viable 
alternatives existed. During the lengthy and public process, the agency 
held 130 public meetings, reviewed thousands of public comments, 97 
percent of which were opposed to the road.
  Ultimately, the Interior Department determined that building a road 
through the one-of-a-kind wilderness area is not justified because it 
will destroy an irreplaceable ecosystem, and there are other ways to 
improve transportation in the area.
  This is not just a simple trail through the woods. It is a road 
through a narrow chain of islands and lagoons. Its construction 
requires the development of bridges, installation of culverts and 
pipes, and the dredge and fill of nearly 4 acres of wetlands.
  The Izembek National Wildlife Refuge supports numerous species of 
migratory waterfowl that we have international treaty obligations to 
protect, including nearly the entire global population of the Pacific 
black brant, and one of the only populations of nonmigratory tundra 
swans, in addition to providing prime habitat for bears, caribou, and 
other wildlife.
  Now, before the point can be made, let me just say, I want to be 
clear, I have never been to the refuge. Opposition to this road is not 
based on personal opinion or spite, or ignorance, or because we love 
birds more than people.
  Opposition to this road is based on extensive public comments and a 
long, careful, scientific review of its merits conducted by 
conservation professionals. The table of contents for the environmental 
review--not the review itself, but just the table of contents--is 28 
pages long. The EIS comes with 10 appendices.
  The Department of the Interior did its homework. They weighed the 
costs and the benefits and made an informed decision. Now we are being 
asked just to ignore that scientific analysis and ram this road right 
through the refuge, despite knowing the damage it will do.
  The consequences of a decision like that are known. They are not 
unintended. The road through an Alaskan wilderness is not justified. 
This particular road is not justified, and it is not necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), who is hurriedly making his way to the 
front podium.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 218, the King 
Cove Road Land Exchange Act. I thank Congressman Don Young for his 
tireless work on this pressing issue.
  Nineteen people: the cost of decades of inaction by the Federal 
Government, Mr. Chairman, is 19 American lives.
  Expedient access to a hospital is something most Americans can, 
fortunately, take for granted. For many, emergency services are an 
ambulance ride away. Not for the citizens of King Cove, Alaska.
  Adjacent to the Aleutian Islands, the 1,000 residents of King Cove, 
Alaska, are connected to hospitals in the region via a small runway and 
a ferry. Harsh winter storms ground planes and prevent safe sea travel, 
cutting off residents from hospitals and necessary supplies.
  In truly dire emergencies, King Cove residents have but two choices. 
Number one is to pray a boat captain will brave enormous seas. Or wait 
until the Coast Guard can dispatch a medivac helicopter.
  Mr. Chairman, allow me to read some of the stories of those who have 
braved the sea, or held out until help arrived.
  Take, for example, Lonnie Brandell, who had to hoist his ailing 
father out of a fishing boat during a blizzard. After a perilous 3-hour 
journey to Cold Bay, the sea was so rough his boat could not dock. 
Brandell had to tie a rope around his father and allow him to be pulled 
to safety. To quote Brandell: ``It was not a good scenario at all. But 
if we had stayed here one more day, even 10 or 12 more hours, he would 
not have lived.''
  Or take Etta Kuzakin, who went into labor early. Unable to safely 
leave King Cove during a storm, it took the Coast Guard 8 hours to 
arrive to rescue her. ``I was lucky,'' she says. ``The Coast Guard was 
in the area. That is really what it was. They were in the area.''
  Mr. Chairman, this is shameful. Our citizens should not have to wait 
hours for a medivac, or brave treacherous seas while we sit here and 
debate this issue. No American should have to perish while we argue 
whether or not a refuge would be better off with 81 or 70 miles of 
gravel road.
  I urge my colleagues to listen to the stories of Etta Kuzakin, Lonnie 
Brandell, and others. I urge my colleagues to think about the 19 
Americans who perished for want of a gravel road.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support H.R. 218.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Gosar), a subcommittee chairman of the Natural 
Resources Committee.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 218, 
the King Cove Road Land Exchange Act, introduced by my good friend and 
Western Caucus Vice-Chairman for Indian Affairs and Oceans, Mr. Don 
Young.
  H.R. 218 authorizes a commonsense land exchange between the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the State of Alaska that will save lives and 
taxpayer money.
  The bill provides significant benefits for all parties, including 
tribal members, supporters of fish and wildlife, supporters of the 
environment, supporters of the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge and, 
most importantly, the people living in the surrounding areas that need 
access to critical medical and healthcare services.
  Local communities in the State of Alaska have been trying to build a 
one-lane, 11-mile gravel road to link King Cove and Cold Bay for nearly 
3 decades.
  The bill authorizes the transfer of more than 43,000 acres of Alaska 
State land in exchange for just 206 acres of Federal land. These 
43,000-plus acres will be added to the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge 
in order to protect fish, wildlife, and the environment.
  The one-lane, 11-mile noncommercial road that will be built as a 
result of this legislation is necessary in order to provide access to 
emergency medical assistance for American citizens and native 
populations.
  The bill will save taxpayer money. Since 2013 alone, 55 emergency 
medivacs have been required to get people in need of significant 
medical attention to hospitals. Many of these medical evacuations have 
required the Coast Guard, as inclement weather prevents aerial flights 
on an average of 100 days per year and results in cancellation of more 
than 40 percent of flights in King Cove.
  In order to receive lifesaving care, local residents often must fly 
600 miles to Anchorage. Connecting King Cove to Cold Bay Airport will 
allow the Agdaagux Tribe and local residents to receive the emergency 
services they need and deserve.
  The National Congress of American Indians has testified before 
Congress multiple times in support of this legislation and on the need 
to construct this road. NCAI has also passed formal resolutions of 
support in 2007, 2014, and 2015.
  The 2015 NCAI resolution stated:
  ``The Aleut people of King Cove are continuing to seek justice for 
this

[[Page 11334]]

basic right to safe and dependable transportation access for emergency 
and routine medical health, which is an expectation that most 
Americans, Indian and non-Indian take for granted . . .
  ``Because of public health, safety, and quality of life factors, the 
NCAI does hereby support the rights of the Aleut people of King Cove 
for this basic expectation of dependable transportation access, and 
calls upon Congress to immediately pass new legislation approving a 
land corridor for the construction of a permanent lifesaving road 
linking the community of King Cove to Cold Bay Airport.''
  I couldn't agree more with the National Congress of American Indians. 
These people in these local communities have a fundamental right to 
basic healthcare. Let's pass this bill so that we can build an 11-mile 
gravel road and ensure they receive these basic services.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alaska for his leadership in 
sponsoring this much-needed legislation. I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to vote in support of this commonsense bill.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have heard the argument, and we will repeatedly hear the argument 
that the road connecting King Cove to Cold Bay is needed for health and 
safety purposes. While it is true that the road will be used for 
medical emergencies, there is a lot of evidence pointing to another 
objective.

                              {time}  1015

  If you look at the decades-long effort to build this road, it becomes 
clear that there has always been a commercial purpose in mind. King 
Cove is home to one of the largest fish processing facilities, operated 
by Peter Pan Seafoods, a subsidiary of a Japanese company that is one 
of the largest seafood companies in the world.
  Fishing is the backbone of the King Cove economy, and it has always 
been one of the reasons for the road. Let's look at the facts.
  In 1994, the city of King Cove passed a resolution to emphasize the 
positive socioeconomic impacts of a 20-mile road linking King Cove to 
the Cold Bay Airport. The resolution did not mention any need to use 
the road for health or safety or for emergency situations of residents.
  In 2005, the Aleutians East Borough participated in public scoping 
meetings and presented their vision for a hub airport for Cold Bay. 
This plan included cold storage capability for fish from King Cove and 
other communities awaiting air freight.
  In 2010, as part of a Fish and Wildlife EIS for the land exchange we 
are debating today, an Aleutians East Borough assemblyman stated that 
Peter Pan Seafoods would use the road to transport fresh product.
  And finally, on May 25 of this year, Alaska Governor Bill Walker sent 
a request to the Trump administration. He asked for: ``Access for 
isolated King Cove residents to the airport in Cold Bay in all weather 
conditions, enabling access to health services and the movement of 
goods and people between King Cove and Cold Bay.''
  When you add all this up, the evidence is pretty convincing. Sure, 
the road will be used for emergency evacuations, but it will also be 
used to transport fresh product to Cold Bay to be sold throughout Asia 
and the rest of the world.
  Despite language in the bill seeking to prohibit commercial use of 
the road, once it is built, this prohibition will be incredibly 
difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. This is an incredibly remote 
area, and the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have the resources or 
staff capacity to police the use of the road.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock), the chairman of the Federal Lands 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, we have just heard a very familiar theme from the 
Democratic side of the aisle. It is a theme they have sounded for the 
past decade and goes a long way to explain why America's prosperity has 
been stagnating. It has literally been on hold during these past 8 
years.
  God forbid there should be more jobs to support struggling families 
in this little community. God forbid our roads should ever be used to 
get products to people who desperately need them.
  Now, it is hard for me to understand how a one-lane gravel road is 
going to accommodate all of that commerce. What it is going to 
accommodate are people who desperately need access to the neighboring 
city of Cold Bay.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of this bill, Mr. Young's H.R. 
218, on behalf of the people of King Cove, Alaska.
  I want you to imagine being a resident of that tiny little community. 
Its only outside access is by a gravel airstrip and a little tiny 
harbor. It is just 20 miles from the city of Cold Bay. Cold Bay has got 
a regional airport, they have got medical facilities, but there is no 
road connecting that little town with the life-sustaining civilization 
just 20 miles away.
  We all know of the exceptionally harsh weather conditions in that 
area; they routinely prevent air and sea travel out of King Cove. If 
you are in trouble in that weather, there is help just down the road, 
but there is no road.
  Why is there no road? Well, we have just heard a sampling of why. It 
is not because of natural barriers. It is not for lack of need or 
financing. It is because a national wildlife refuge in a section of the 
Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge is in between these 
communities and the Federal Government and leftwing environmental 
activists just won't hear of it.
  For over 20 years, the people of King Cove have begged for this 
lifesaving road for their safety--not a major interstate, not a 
parkway, just a one-lane road. It requires only 206 acres out of the 59 
million acres of designated Federal wilderness in Alaska.
  Just in the last 4 years, this has been pointed out, 55 emergency 
medical evacuations have been made, a number of which required Coast 
Guard involvement or extended patient waiting times or both.
  Mr. Westerman has told us just last year of the King Cove woman in 
her seventies suffering from heart issues medevaced from King Cove to 
Cold Bay by Coast Guard vessel after high winds prevented an air 
ambulance from landing at King Cove. In the end, it took the woman over 
7 hours to reach a hospital in Anchorage.
  A road between King Cove and Cold Bay would go a long way to 
preventing similar situations from recurring, and it would provide a 
potentially lifesaving evacuation route for King Cove citizens in the 
event of an emergency. And if it helps provide additional jobs for that 
little community, well, I say so much the better.
  Congressman Young has tried for more than a decade to get this done, 
but it has been stymied by leftwing environmental activists and by 
ideological zealots in the bureaucracy. During our hearing on the bill, 
opposition came not from any of the communities involved, but from 
environmental activists hundreds of miles away from King Cove, although 
they seemed to have mouthpieces here in this House.
  In exchange for use of the 206 acres of Federal land for this road, 
the State of Alaska is willing to transfer 40,000 acres of State land 
to the Federal Government. This bill facilitates that transfer and, 
after two decades, finally gives permission for this little road to be 
built. It is long overdue.
  I salute Congressman Young for his persistent pursuit of justice for 
the long-suffering people of King Cove.
  Mr. Chair, I ask for speedy adoption of this bill by this House.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, we are not saying that the residents of 
King Cove do not deserve reliable transportation options, and neither 
did the EIS. The EIS included an analysis of nonroad transportation 
options that would piggyback off the $37.5 million Congress has already 
invested in King Cove's infrastructure.
  The Interior Department also asked the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
to

[[Page 11335]]

analyze the nonroad transportation options to connect King Cove with 
Cold Bay. The Army Corps published a report in 2015 that identified 
three viable alternatives. These included a new airport that is capable 
of supporting aircraft that can fly directly to Anchorage, a heliport 
for emergency evacuations, and an ice-capable marine vessel that is 
able to make the trip to Cold Bay in weather conditions that the 
taxpayer-funded hovercraft could not.
  Options exist, and that is why I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, I thank my friend from Arizona for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chair, I rise to oppose this bill today for a number of reasons, 
but building a road through a congressionally designated wilderness 
area is without precedent. There are lots of other reasons.
  I would note that at least today's debate shifts the focus of this 
Congress in the right direction because, when we look to Alaska, it 
requires a gaze just a little bit further into Russia, and I only wish 
that what we were debating today was the sanctions bill that passed the 
Senate by a vote of 98-2. The reason that we should be debating that 
bill today is readily apparent to anyone who has been paying attention 
to recent events.
  Just this morning, we read of the President's interview with The New 
York Times, and we think about a President who took action to fire the 
acting Attorney General, to urge the FBI Director to go easy on Flynn 
in the Flynn investigation, who fired the FBI Director because of the 
Russia investigation, and who just now, in this interview yesterday, 
threatened the acting FBI Director, the Attorney General of the United 
States, and the person carrying out the investigation of Russia and the 
potential ties between his administration and Russia.
  All of this gets to the larger point, which is we are getting ready 
to go home at the end of next week for August, and if we go home 
without passing the sanctions bill and getting tough on Russia, we will 
have failed the American people on a vital national security issue. We 
will be showing weakness at a time when the American people expect to 
see strength, expect us to stand up to Russian attempts to interfere 
with our election, to stand up when we learn about an eight-person--for 
now, eight-person--meeting that was put together with the sole purpose, 
according to the emails, of providing information to help President 
Trump, then candidate Trump, get elected with the assistance of the 
Russian Government.
  We don't know where this will all lead. I acknowledge that. But it is 
because what we do know about Russia that we have to act not against 
the administration--it is a mischaracterization to suggest that. The 
bill passed 98-2 in the Senate. This is a bill that will enable us to 
move forward in a bipartisan way, which the American people desperately 
want, to stand up to Russia.
  It is for that reason that is I ask unanimous consent that the House 
bring up H.R. 3203, which is the Russia sanctions bill that passed the 
Senate 98-2--98-2. When has this body seen that kind of bipartisanship?
  I ask that that bill be brought up so that we can vote on it and not 
disappoint the American people before we leave here in August. That is 
what we ought to be doing. I hope we will have the chance to do it now.
  Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent that we bring up the Russia 
sanctions bill to debate and to pass that bill today.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman's request cannot be entertained in the 
Committee of the Whole.


                        Parliamentary Inquiries

  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chair, a point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DEUTCH. May the request that the Russia sanctions bill, H.R. 
3203, that passed the Senate 98-2 be brought up for consideration when 
we are no longer meeting as the Committee of the Whole?
  The CHAIR. A request may be made at that time.
  Mr. DEUTCH. And one further point of parliamentary inquiry.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. DEUTCH. When we have an opportunity to make the unanimous consent 
request to bring up the Russia sanctions bill so we can get tough on 
Russia, as the American people expect us to do, is that something that 
would require, when I ask for unanimous consent, can the Speaker alone 
refuse to grant that consent?
  The CHAIR. The Chair will not respond to a hypothetical question.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, may I inquire of the ranking member if 
he has any germane speakers left on this issue.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Other than myself, no.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me deal with one claim.
  The claim that people will die if we don't pass H.R. 218 is wrong. 
The claim is wrong because there is no evidence to back it up, and it 
is wrong because using this kind of over-the-top rhetoric is 
irresponsible.
  We do not oppose this bill because we think animal life is more value 
than human life, and throwing accusations like that around on the House 
floor should be beneath all of us.
  We do not have to rely on one Member's claim that the sky is falling. 
These concerns have been assessed for years through public process, and 
the conclusion was that there were viable alternatives that will 
address any legitimate public safety concerns.
  People's lives do not hang in the balance. We can protect public 
health and the refuge if we abandon this bill and work together on a 
better solution.
  This is, indeed, a remote area. That is why many of the residents 
choose to live there in the first place. They are fully accustomed to 
the challenges that come with living in the last frontier. To address 
these challenges, the Federal Government has appropriated tens of 
millions of dollars to this community for better medical and 
transportation facilities.
  We have remote communities in Arizona, especially Tribal communities, 
that would surely appreciate $37.5 million to address their health and 
safety concerns as well.
  The local government used some of that money to buy a hovercraft that 
could make the airport run much faster than this road will ever allow. 
The local community, not the Federal Government, elected to stop using 
the hovercraft. Surely, if people's lives were at stake, the local 
government would not have made that kind of a decision.
  We have legitimate policy differences on this bill. The EIS has 
convinced many on our side that this is not a worthwhile proposal. 
Let's debate these findings calmly and rationally that would serve the 
public in this debate and look for a solution that both protects 
people's health and the refuge.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1030

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This is an issue that people have, for three decades, been trying 
calmly discuss and find an alternative. Unfortunately, the people of 
Alaska, who have been engaged in this effort for the last three-plus 
decades, have been rebuffed at every turn in which the only answer they 
got was the Federal Government here in Washington giving them an 
alternative, and forcing upon them an alternative that flat out didn't 
work, and it hasn't worked in the last 7 years.
  One of the things we should realize is that this idea of building 
this road is not new. The House has voted to build this road. The 
Senate has voted to

[[Page 11336]]

build this road. Unfortunately, they didn't vote it on the same bill, 
except, in 2009, when there was a piece of legislation that went 
through both the House and the Senate, which was very clear at the time 
that it was the intent of both the House and the Senate to build the 
road, but it did require the Interior Department to do the NEPA 
process. They took 4 years.
  Now think of that. It was in 2009 when the bill was passed and the 
intent of Congress was very clear. Four years later, the Interior 
Department finally got around to doing the study, a study which, I 
might add, had five options that were added to it, one of which was to 
do nothing, and the Interior Department chose, after 4 years of study 
as their preferred option, to do nothing.
  Therefore, all of the efforts and anguish of these people in Alaska 
went to naught because a bureaucracy here decided, despite what the 
House had said and despite what the Senate had said, that they knew 
best, despite what the people of Alaska needed, they knew best and 
their option simply was to do nothing.
  This bill, let me remind you, all of the masses of people who are 
here, is not about a road. It is about a land transfer for a road. The 
State of Alaska is putting up 43,096 acres for new wilderness in 
exchange for 200-plus acres--240, I think, acres to be a road, a road 
that already exists. There is a 30-mile road that exists. The only 
problem is, only 19 of the 30 miles are constructed. They exist. They 
are there now.
  What Alaska is asking is: Simply give us the last 11, so the road 
that does exist can be used. It can be used for them, for their medical 
needs, for their recreation, if they want to. I mean, it has been 
brought up that, heaven forbid, this might be used for economic 
advantage. I don't know why this community of around 1,000 people, 
about 80 percent are Native Alaskans, would ever have the audacity to 
think that they ought to have a job, or the audacity to think that 
maybe they should try and use something that is there to further their 
economic ability to actually earn a living.
  How uppity can you get, when we realize that those of us sitting here 
6,000 miles away really have the superior wisdom to tell those people 
living in King Cove how they actually should live their life, and we 
did it. We did it in the 1990s. We said: No, you can't have a road 
because we have a philosophical opposition to it. Instead, we will 
spend a heck of a lot of money to come up with a hovercraft that 
doesn't work, and is too expensive, and is useless, and it no longer 
exists.
  And now you are saying, ``No, no, no, you can't have access to the 
mainland. You can't have access to an all-weather airport. You can't 
have access for medical care; you can't have access for jobs. You can't 
have access for anything. Instead, let's work together to come up with 
another really stupid idea that won't work as well,'' when the solution 
is simply to build a road, 11 miles to connect an existing road so 
people who live in King Cove can do it.
  You have already heard the data that has been presented. In the last 
30 years, 19 people have died. Nineteen people have died, and it can be 
traced specifically to the fact that they didn't have access to 
healthcare.
  In the last 3 years, they have had over 50 cases when medevac had to 
be used, very expensively, by the Coast Guard to try and help people 
out there. You wouldn't have to do that if you simply had the silly 
road; the 70-year-old woman who had to wait 7 hours, suffering a heart 
attack before she could get medical care; the woman in labor who had to 
go 6 hours before she could get someplace to have medical care; the man 
who had the saw accident, who had to wait 12 hours before he was able 
to get any kind of medical care, simply because there is not an 11-mile 
single-lane gravel road to connect to the rest of the 30-mile road that 
already exists.
  And we sit here and try and tell these people in Alaska what is best 
for them, what is good for them? And that is emotional? And that is 
irrational?
  No. What is irrational is that we are going through this again, the 
same thing we did last decade, the same thing that happened in the 
1990s. And it is going to continue until we finally say: People should 
have a right to decide for themselves what is best for them.
  The people who live in this community want a road. It is not going to 
hurt anything. It is 200 acres, and this is a land exchange. Actually, 
I have to admit, I don't like that. Alaska is giving up 40,000 acres--
40,000 acres--so they can do 200 acres of a road. I think that is an 
exorbitant fee that is being extracted from the State of Alaska just so 
they can give these people, the overwhelming majority of whom are 
Native Alaskans, the opportunity of having access to their community so 
they can get medical care or whatever else they need so they can have 
it.
  And we are sitting here because we don't want to do a precedent. This 
is the right thing to do. We should do this. We should have been done 
it back in the Clinton administration when it first came up. We should 
have gone through with it in 2009 when they finally passed it in both 
the House and the Senate, and then had to wait 4 years for the Interior 
Department to study the issue, and their conclusion was: let's not do 
anything. That doesn't exist.
  It is time for us to do something to help people, to put people above 
ideology, to pass the bill.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment 
under the 5-minute rule.
  It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose 
of amendment under the 5-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-27. That 
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read.
  The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as 
follows:

                                H.R. 218

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``King Cove Road Land Exchange 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDING.

       Congress finds that the land exchange required under this 
     Act (including the designation of the road corridor and the 
     construction of the road along the road corridor) is in the 
     public interest.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Federal land.--
       (A) In general.--The term ``Federal land'' means the 
     approximately 206 acres of Federal land located within the 
     Refuge as depicted on the map entitled ``Project Area Map'' 
     and dated September 2012.
       (B) Inclusion.--The term ``Federal land'' includes the 131 
     acres of Federal land in the Wilderness, which shall be used 
     for the road corridor along which the road is to be 
     constructed in accordance with section 4(b)(2).
       (2) Non-federal land.--The term ``non-Federal land'' means 
     the approximately 43,093 acres of land owned by the State as 
     depicted on the map entitled ``Project Area Map'' and dated 
     September 2012.
       (3) Refuge.--The term ``Refuge'' means the Izembek National 
     Wildlife Refuge in the State.
       (4) Road corridor.--The term ``road corridor'' means the 
     road corridor designated under section 4(b)(1).
       (5) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (6) State.--The term ``State'' means the State of Alaska.
       (7) Wilderness.--The term ``Wilderness'' means the Izembek 
     Wilderness designated by section 702(6) of the Alaska 
     National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 1132 
     note; Public Law 96-487).

     SEC. 4. LAND EXCHANGE REQUIRED.

       (a) In General.--If the State offers to convey to the 
     Secretary all right, title, and interest of the State in and 
     to the non-Federal land, the Secretary shall convey to the 
     State all right, title, and interest of the United States in 
     and to the Federal land.
       (b) Use of Federal Land.--The Federal land shall be 
     conveyed to the State for the purposes of--
       (1) designating a road corridor through the Refuge; and
       (2) constructing a single-lane gravel road along the road 
     corridor subject to the requirements in section 6.
       (c) Valuation, Appraisals, and Equalization.--
       (1) In general.--The value of the Federal land and the non-
     Federal land to be exchanged under this section--
       (A) shall be equal, as determined by appraisals conducted 
     in accordance with paragraph (2); or

[[Page 11337]]

       (B) if not equal, shall be equalized in accordance with 
     paragraph (3).
       (2) Appraisals.--
       (A) In general.--As soon as practicable after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary and State shall select 
     an appraiser to conduct appraisals of the Federal land and 
     non-Federal land.
       (B) Requirements.--The appraisals required under 
     subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in accordance with 
     nationally recognized appraisal standards, including--
       (i) the Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land 
     Acquisitions; and
       (ii) the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal 
     Practice.
       (3) Equalization.--
       (A) Surplus of federal land.--If the final appraised value 
     of the Federal land exceeds the final appraised value of the 
     non-Federal land to be conveyed under the land exchange under 
     this section, the value of the Federal land and non-Federal 
     land shall be equalized--
       (i) by conveying additional non-Federal land in the State 
     to the Secretary, subject to the approval of the Secretary;
       (ii) by the State making a cash payment to the United 
     States; or
       (iii) by using a combination of the methods described in 
     clauses (i) and (ii).
       (B) Surplus of non-federal land.--If the final appraised 
     value of the non-Federal land exceeds the final appraised 
     value of the Federal land to be conveyed under the land 
     exchange under this section, the value of the Federal land 
     and non-Federal land shall be equalized by the State 
     adjusting the acreage of the non-Federal land to be conveyed.
       (C) Amount of payment.--Notwithstanding section 206(b) of 
     the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
     1716(b)), the Secretary may accept a payment under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) in excess of 25 percent of the value of 
     the Federal land conveyed.
       (d) Administration.--On completion of the exchange of 
     Federal land and non-Federal land under this section--
       (1) the boundary of the Wilderness shall be modified to 
     exclude the Federal land; and
       (2) the non-Federal land shall be--
       (A) added to the Wilderness; and
       (B) administered in accordance with--
       (i) the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.); and
       (ii) other applicable laws.
       (e) Deadline.--The land exchange under this section shall 
     be completed not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. ROUTE OF ROAD CORRIDOR.

       The route of the road corridor shall follow the southern 
     road alignment as described in the alternative entitled 
     ``Alternative 2-Land Exchange and Southern Road Alignment'' 
     in the final environmental impact statement entitled 
     ``Izembek National Wildlife Refuge Land Exchange/Road 
     Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement'' and dated 
     February 5, 2013.

     SEC. 6. REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO ROAD.

       The requirements relating to usage, barrier cables, and 
     dimensions and the limitation on support facilities under 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 6403 of the Omnibus Public 
     Land Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 
     1180) shall apply to the road constructed in the road 
     corridor.

     SEC. 7. EFFECT.

       The exchange of Federal land and non-Federal land and the 
     road to be constructed under this Act shall not constitute a 
     major Federal action for purposes of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

  The CHAIR. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a 
substitute shall be in order except those printed in part C of House 
Report 115-235. Each such amendment may be offered only in the order 
printed in the report, by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the 
report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Tsongas

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in 
part C of House Report 115-235.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 18, insert the following:

     SEC. 7. MITIGATION PLAN.

       The requirements related to mitigation under section 
     6403(e) of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 
     (Public Law 111-11; 123 Stat. 1180) shall apply to the road 
     constructed in the road corridor.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Massachusetts.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My amendment is very straightforward. It restores a bipartisan 
provision to the bill, one that was actually approved by Congress and 
signed into law by President Obama.
  In 2009, Congress approved the King Cove Land Exchange under the 
condition that it be found to be in the national interest by the 
Secretary of the Interior. After a transparent 4-year review that 
included over 70,000 public comments and 130 public meetings, Secretary 
Jewell ultimately concluded that it was not in the national interest, 
and the land exchange was not approved.
  Nevertheless, the legislation that was approved and signed into law 
in 2009 with Democratic and Republican support included language that, 
should the road be approved, it would have required the State of 
Alaska, Federal agencies, and local residents to develop a mitigation 
plan for the road so that impacts to migratory birds, wildlife, and 
wetlands are minimized.
  The land exchange language that was passed by Congress in 2009 is 
similar to the legislation that we are considering today, with a few 
notable exceptions, including the removal of the section requiring this 
environmental mitigation plan.
  It is common practice for any new road construction project to 
include an environmental mitigation plan, especially a road through 
such a sensitive area.
  Mr. Chair, I urge adoption of my commonsense amendment to reinsert 
this bipartisan language, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This amendment is mischievous and trying to defeat what we are trying 
to do today. The amendment is wholly unnecessary to mitigate impacts of 
migratory birds in Izembek Refuge. Again, the single-lane noncommercial 
11 miles has no affect upon the wildlife, the waterfowl, of any kind.
  It would allow, again, the Secretary, or one of the other Secretaries 
of a lesser part, like Fish and Wildlife Service, to delay the project. 
It is an effort, again, to delay the project.
  We didn't expect--by the way, when we say there are 70,000 or more 
public comments, there was less than 100 from Alaska. These are outside 
comments. This whole idea of public comments sometimes doesn't make 
sense when they are nowhere near the Izembek Refuge or this road.
  Sometimes I think we get caught in this idea that, oh, we have got 
all of these public comments against something or for something, let's 
look at where they are from.
  This amendment, again, as I say, is mischievous. It is trying to kill 
the project. It should not be done. It is being pushed by the 
environmental community, again, to kill this project.
  As I mentioned in my opening statement, you probably got some phone 
calls. Frankly, they don't know what they are talking about. So I urge 
my colleagues to vote against this amendment, which is an attempt, 
again, to stop this road. Let's build this road for the people of King 
Cove.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to keep in mind 
that the lands that this road seeks to cross are Federally protected 
public lands. They are managed and protected on behalf of all Americans 
to specifically protect wildlife habitat. And, as such, when changes 
like this are being debated, all Americans have the right to register 
their opinion.
  They are also designated wilderness, the highest level of protection 
that the American people bestow upon a piece of public land, and we in 
Congress are stewards of that mandate.
  The road proposed by this legislation could do irreparable harm to 
the fragile environment of this wildlife refuge if mitigation steps are 
not taken. As the Department of the Interior stated in 2013, this area 
is ``a globally significant landscape that supports an abundance and 
diversity of wildlife unique

[[Page 11338]]

to the refuge that years of analysis shows us would be irretrievably 
damaged by construction and operation of the proposed road.''
  The Department also found that construction of the road would lead to 
``significant degradation of irreparable ecological resources that 
would not be offset by the protection of other lands to be received 
under an exchange.''
  My amendment simply reinserts bipartisan language that was approved 
by Congress and signed into law by 2009 that will help mitigate some, 
but not all, of the negative environmental impacts in the event that 
the road is constructed.
  Mr. Chair, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to reclaim my 
time. I made a mistake and I said ``yield,'' when I should have said 
``reserve.''
  The CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Alaska?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for allowing me 
to speak on this again.
  I stress the fact that the Federal Government is going to receive 
43,000 acres for additional wilderness in exchange for 42 acres. I 
mean, I don't know how many deals you can ever work that you get that 
kind of deal. This is a great thing for the refuge. It is the right 
thing for the refuge.
  Again, as we go about this bipartisan legislation, we expected in 
2009 to have this road built. That is why we are back here. It is not 
the first time. For 40 years this community has been trying to get this 
road built.
  We thought that we had it in 2009, but because of the administrations 
that were unfavorable to it, and the slowness of the report of the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and then having Secretary of the Interior Sally 
Jewell say, ``No, there are other alternatives,'' when they did not 
work.
  So I am suggesting, respectfully, that, again, this amendment is 
trying to kill the bill. It is not trying to provide a solution to 
anything.
  Respectfully, I would say this again: vote against this amendment. 
Let's defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers, and I continue to 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chair, may I just inquire how much time is 
remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Alaska has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining. 
The gentlewoman from Massachusetts has 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to first remind my 
distinguished colleague from Alaska, who I know cares very deeply about 
his constituents, that in 2009, he did vote for the omnibus land 
package that included the language that I would like to see become part 
of the legislation before us today.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It restores bipartisan language 
that was passed by Congress and that Congressman Young supported and 
signed into law on similar legislation authorizing this land exchange 
back in 2009.
  The road through Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is expected to have 
a significant detrimental impact on lands that are protected for the 
benefit of all Americans. This amendment will help mitigate some, but 
not all, of these impacts in the event that the road is constructed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is the chairman.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I can say I don't support this 
because even though I had three bills in that package, I voted against 
it. It was a bad package going through.
  But the problem is that this amendment does nothing more than 
reinsert the language that caused the problem in the first place. This 
language is the reason that we don't have the solution right now. 
Remember, the solution was no action, not to do anything whatsoever.
  I understand sometimes we have distance issues that come here. The 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts has not an inch of BLM land in her 
entire State. Only 3 percent of the land is controlled by the Federal 
Government, which is much different than having 90 percent controlled 
by the Federal Government as in Alaska. I would contend that if there 
was any other area in the Nation--especially the eastern part of the 
Nation that had a situation like this--they would not tolerate this 
existing.
  They also had the ability of actually solving the problem on the 
local level, which is what they are asking in this bill to simply do. 
Eighty percent of these people are Native Alaskans. They don't have the 
lung power to come up here and express for themselves. They don't have 
the resources to hire special interest groups to come express for 
themselves. They are depending on us to do it for them.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIR. The gentleman has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, may I suggest we talk about this 
legislation. We thought 9 years ago or 8 years ago that we would have 
this road built. There is no Federal money involved in it. It is a road 
that needs to be done, and if we reinstate this language, what will 
happen is there will be a time where the road again will be studied and 
won't be built. For forty years, they have waited and lost lives, and 
we are talking about letting the Federal Government get involved again.
  Mr. Chairman, I am saying this is the time to build the road.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. TSONGAS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Massachusetts will be 
postponed.


             Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 2 printed in 
part C of House Report 115-235.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, line 21, insert ``(including the issuance of any 
     permit that may be required from any Federal agency to 
     construct the road)'' after ``under this Act''.

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, in order to fully ensure that this 
emergency route will not be slowed down by unnecessary regulatory 
delays, my amendment makes minor changes to section 7 to conform to the 
text of H.R. 218 with the Senate text of S. 101.
  Section 7 of the underlying bill waives the NEPA process because the 
NEPA process had already been completed in 2014 under Secretary Jewell. 
An environmental impact statement has already been published. Secretary 
Jewell ignored the public health and safety aspects that killed people 
because we don't have a road.
  There is no reason to make the people of King Cove go through the 
time-consuming and expensive process again when it was done so 
recently. The people of King Cove have fought for this road for 40 
years. People have literally died, again, because of the lack of this 
road to Cold Bay which has a 6,000-foot airstrip.

[[Page 11339]]

  Mr. Chairman, again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. 
While it was described as a technical amendment to conform the bill to 
the Senate version, it does much more than make a simple technical 
correction.
  Mr. Young's amendment expands the NEPA waiver in the underlying bill 
to exempt all permits associated with the construction of the proposed 
road from environmental review and public input. It is bad enough that 
the bill waives NEPA for the land exchange, but under this amendment, 
any and all improvements would be exempt from review. This could 
include a Clean Water Act permit necessary to move forward with the 
construction.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment makes the bill worse. I urge a ``no'' 
vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Again, Mr. Chairman, let's not wait again for 40 
years or 9 years or 10 years. This has already been done by the study. 
The impact statement has already been done. The NEPA process has 
already been done. It has been done recently, and this is not a cheap 
effort for a small community. So I am suggesting, respectfully, this 
amendment be adopted so we can build a road.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

  The CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in 
part C of House Report 115-235.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order under 
the rule at the desk.
  The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 6, after line 24, insert the following:

     SEC. 8. TAXPAYER FAIRNESS.

       This Act shall not take effect until the State of Alaska 
     has repaid to the United States the $20,000,000 in Federal 
     funds appropriated and paid to the State of Alaska under 
     section 353(a) of the Department of the Interior and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-277).

  The CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 454, the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, acknowledging that I am running the risk 
of being uppity on this particular amendment, but thankfully never 
smug, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 218, the King Cove Road 
Land Exchange Act.
  My amendment simply requires the State of Alaska to repay $20 million 
appropriated in 1999 to support the town of King Cove before the bill 
can take effect. The American taxpayer has already provided the town of 
King Cove with a total of $37.5 million to improve transportation 
access and medical facilities in the area. That included $20 million to 
build a road, construct a dock, and purchase marine equipment.
  Part of this money was used to purchase a $9 million hovercraft. This 
Federal funding was provided as an alternative to building a road 
through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge. The hovercraft worked as 
it was designed. It carried up to 49 passengers at a time, an 
ambulance, and even cargo, making the trip between King Cove and Cold 
Bay in 20 minutes--a trip that would take 2 hours on the proposed road 
when it is not shut down by extreme weather conditions.
  After operating for 3 years and performing at least 30 medical 
evacuations, the local government stopped using the hovercraft. The 
Aleutians East Borough is now trying to sell the hovercraft on the open 
market for $5 million.
  As we speak, House Republicans are seeking massive and dangerous cuts 
to spending on things like education, assistance to working families, 
and even Medicaid and Medicare. Before we mandate construction of a 
road through congressionally designated wilderness, it is only fair 
that American taxpayers are reimbursed for Federal funding that was 
intended to avoid the construction required by this legislation.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would penalize the 
State of Alaska for a Clinton administration decision by making them 
pay back grant money for the costly and often unreliable emergency 
hovercraft system.
  Residents of King Cove never wanted this system and only agreed to 
the compromise when it became clear the Clinton administration would 
oppose any effort to authorize the construction of this lifesaving 
road.
  After years of working in good faith to make the solution work, King 
Cove had to abandon the system due to exorbitant cost and, frankly, 
mechanical failures on the craft. It was very expensive to run.
  Very frankly, the amendment attempts reparation but it targets the 
wrong group. The amendment puts a price tag on the safety of King Cove 
residents who have sought more reliable access to medical care for 
decades.
  Congress does not require Louisiana to pay the Federal Government for 
the failed levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina before 
building new ones and should not be charging the residents of King Cove 
for constructing this road.
  By the way, furthermore, the amendment seeks repayment from the State 
of Alaska that did not receive money; however, the grant money is for 
temporary emergency relief efforts which were largely awarded to the 
local governments.
  Mr. Chairman, again, I think this amendment is a punitive amendment. 
I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, let me remind, the point of the amendment 
is that the money, the $37.5 million, and also the decision by the 
local residents to purchase the hovercraft, that was not mandated by 
the Federal Government. It was their decision, again with Federal 
money, $9 million, and so that was all in lieu of construction of the 
road.
  This legislation mandates a construction of that road, and I think it 
is only fair to the taxpayers that if the purpose was in lieu of to 
deal with the medical evacuation situations that we have heard about 
here again today, then the American taxpayers should be reimbursed for 
that. This was not an error caused by, as the levees in New Orleans, 
faulty design and construction that bore responsibility to the Federal 
Government. These were local decisions made on the use of that money. 
Now that the use of that money is moot, then the taxpayers deserve to 
be reimbursed.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may 
consume to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop) who is the chairman of 
the committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as we close on this particular 
amendment, let me say I would never consider this amendment uppity. I 
would consider it cute and a gotcha amendment because the reality is, 
unlike what has been alluded to, the community did not want this 
hovercraft.
  They wanted what was promised them in the bill, which was an 11-mile 
road to connect to the rest of the road. It was forced upon them by the 
Clinton administration that said: This is it; take it or leave it.
  They tried to make it work. The bottom line is the system didn't 
work. But the Clinton administration here, 6,000 miles away, forced on 
to local residents

[[Page 11340]]

who knew they would have a problem something that did not work, and 
they quit doing it simply because they could not afford to maintain 
that hovercraft.
  The hovercraft is for sale; but no one needs a hovercraft. That is 
why this community now is stuck with the decision that we made 6,000 
miles away because we know what is right for King Cove, Alaska, instead 
of allowing them to have some kind of control over their own lives.
  What Mr. Young said is accurate. When the levees broke along the 
Mississippi and the Missouri, we didn't go to those States to insist on 
it. When there are wildfires that take place in the West, including the 
gentleman from Arizona's home State, we don't go back to Arizona and 
force them to pay for all of it. This is simply an amendment that is 
cute, and it is a gotcha amendment. But it is also wrong.
  It was also pointed out the grants went to the community. The 
community is not being required under this amendment to pay it back, it 
is the State, which simply means the amendment is also poorly written 
if it ever was indeed supposed to be a sincere amendment.
  This is one of those things that we don't need to go through. The 
options are very clear. We have gone through the process. Vote against 
this particular amendment.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Vote ``yes'' on the bill and ``no'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will be postponed.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holding) having assumed the chair, Mr. Palmer, Chair of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 218) to 
provide for the exchange of Federal land and non-Federal land in the 
State of Alaska for the construction of a road between King Cove and 
Cold Bay, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________