Don Sherwood

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleagues from Pennsylvania for their cooperation on this bill. This is a wonderful thing to have a Lackawanna heritage area and a Schuylkill heritage area that both work to preserve what we have in Pennsylvania, a very unique heritage that was anthracite mining, early manufacturing, and the start of the industrial revolution, the start of the American labor movement. This will be a true preservation and an ability to continue the cleanup of those rivers so that they are treasures and they can be used as they were in colonial times, and there is great progress to be made in improving the environment. This is a cooperative effort to improve our environment and provide an interpretation of our history. This is a worthwhile project. I want to thank everyone that was involved in it. I ask for its passage.

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

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), for arranging this opportunity to discuss the importance of making prescription drug coverage available to all older Americans. I see it as really vital to the health and well-being of seniors throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and all across the country, and that is why I voted for the Medicare Prescription 2000 Act, H.R. 4680 when it passed the House in June of this year. In Pennsylvania, we are very fortunate to have the PACE program and the PACE Net program, which is available for low-income seniors. I am a strong supporter of the PACE program, which was enacted in 1984 by the Pennsylvania legislature and is administered by the Department of Aging. I know just how vital the PACE program is to those Pennsylvania seniors who qualify, but I also recognize that there are many individuals who have exorbitant prescription drug bills and limited incomes and are not covered by PACE. For that reason, I supported H.R. 4680, which helps States with pharmacy assistance programs and allows them to expand coverage to more seniors. For instance, PACE today, the State pays $205 million for people of low income. Then the State has $131 million annually for low- to moderate-income people. Now, PACE tomorrow, with the addition of the money for our prescription bill, would mean that the Federal Government would pay that $205 million that PACE was picking up for Pennsylvania's poor and low income. So the State then would have $336 to spend for low- and moderate- income. So what would happen, the Federal Government would take over the prescriptions for the very limited-income Pennsylvanians, and the Pennsylvania program then could be a great help to the middle class. New Federal subsidies would allow governors to expand popular State pharmacy assistance programs to the middle class. The Republican Congress can really take credit for creating these subsidies. The bill we passed in the House allows States flexibility to take advantage of these new Federal subsidies. Speaker Hastert wrote to Governor Ridge to advise him that there would be a seamless transition to all seniors and the disabled to this new pharmaceutical assistance program. Our delegation is working closely with the leadership to assure that all Pennsylvania seniors have access to affordable, voluntary prescription drug benefit. All the costs incurred by the PACE program, for those under 135 percent of poverty, would be picked up by the Federal Government under our new plan. Any costs incurred after $6,000 are picked up by the Federal Government. States are completely off the hook for the big expense and the low-income people. For beneficiaries of 135 percent to 150 percent of poverty, there is a partial subsidy and it allows States like Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Connecticut to greatly expand their coverage to the middle class. This new Federal benefit goes into effect in 2003, giving our governors the time necessary to make any changes to their State programs. The bipartisan bill transfers financial liability for the millions of dually eligible beneficiaries from medicaid to Medicare, giving the governors $22.8 billion, that is billion with a ``B'' in additional funds to expand drug coverage. The substitute bill sought to keep prescription drug coverage as a financial responsibility of the Medicaid program for which States must fund half the cost. Nothing in our bill 4680 prevents the States from funding senior access to any pharmacy. This is a cost already incurred by State pharmacy assistance programs. My colleagues and I are totally committed to enacting a Medicare prescription drug benefit program which will allow seniors to take full advantage of a subsidized plan to hold down drug prices. The folks in this country that pay the most for a prescription are the ones that go in and buy it on their own without having the benefit of being in any plan. So that card that my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), held up a few minutes ago, if we all had access to that, that means that all prescription drugs to seniors would most probably be reduced in price from 25 to 40 percent. That, in addition to these subsidized benefits is real progress for our seniors. Prescription drugs for seniors is far too an important issue to be playing partisan politics with. We owe it to our seniors to have a plan which is voluntary, affordable and available. My colleagues and I are totally committed, before we go home this year, to having such a plan enacted.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I think what is so important about H.R. 4680 is that it is a flexible plan so that it fits with what we have in Pennsylvania. Because as the gentleman said, we have this wonderful PACE program, when the Federal Government picks up the part of the program that PACE has handled, then Pennsylvania, as I described before, has all of this extra money to make PACE a wraparound program so that it comes up into the middle class. I have so many constituents that have worked hard all their lives and they have done everything right, and they own their home, and they have saved just a little money, and they have their Social Security benefit. If nothing catastrophic comes along, they can get through their golden years pretty well. But they all live in fear of a catastrophic illness or catastrophic prescription drug cost, which would drain down their resources and lose their nest egg or force them to sell their home to pay these bills. This is a program that removes that fear for senior citizens. By supplementing the PACE program, it takes care of a great deal more of their prescription costs, and it also puts an absolute cap on the top, so that no senior should have to worry about losing their home because of the very high cost of prescription drugs. The other thing it does is akin to a group purchasing power. As I said before, people who pay the most are the people who walk up and buy their pharmaceuticals cold turkey and pay with their own money. Anybody that is a member of a buying plan buys them at a reduced rate. We have heard in the discussion that pharmaceuticals sometimes cost less in other countries than they cost here. That is a very involved discussion, but we need to pull the costs down here. One way that H.R. 4680 will do that is by the group purchasing power. If we take all pharmaceutical costs and reduce them by 25 to 40 percent before the government has to step in and pick up their share, then the government's money, your money, goes a lot further. So this plan has some very good points to it. It is voluntary. If one has a plan through one's former employer or through one's union that is superior, one does not have to leave it. One can stay with that and not be charged anything because they voluntarily did not get in the plan. If this is a better plan than someone has, one can join it. If one is low-income, it will take care of all of their prescription costs. If one is middle-income, it will take care of a great many more of them than they have ever had the opportunity to do before, and it will have a level above which they have no responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I think that the merging of our plan and PACE and PACENET in Pennsylvania would take very good care of our citizens. I am very proud to be associated with it.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, there is a very serious problem in my district in northeastern Pennsylvania. It is inequitable. The formula was set years ago, and then it has grown over the years; and it is now that the HMO Plus Choice plans in my most rural counties are reimbursed at the rural national rate, and that is approximately $400 a month, and in the larger cities, the rate is over $700 a month. So what it boils down to is that my rural constituents are going to be denied a benefit under Medicare that people that live in more urban areas have the benefit of. So this is a basic unfairness in the system. I have written HCFA, and I have written the President to try and solve this problem, and my colleague and I have a bill together to try and solve it, and there are some other bills coming out; but that is very important that we make sure that problem is solved before we go home by election time. Because it is basically unfair that a senior that lives in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, should not be able to get the same benefit under Medicare that a senior who lives in Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania, or in Washington, D.C., or Houston, Texas, or Miami, Florida. So I have a great many people in my district that receive these notices. I think there are approximately 30,000 people in my congressional district that were informed in July that their Medicare+Choice provider would cease to do business under the plan on the first of January. Now, we have asked those Medicare+Choice providers to reconsider, to wait until we can do something, and I have written to the administrator of HCFA to ask that that date be moved out so that it can be solved. But we have to get enough funding to the rural areas that people who live in rural areas have the same benefits under Medicare as people who live in urban areas. Mr. Speaker, it goes back to something that was said earlier. Seniors do not care whether the Congress solves it or the President solves it, and they do not care whether it is prescription drug prices or HMO Plus Choice. It is all health care; it is all health care costs. We need to continue to work to make health care more available and more affordable for seniors. This plan, H.R. 4680, goes a long way towards that. But we will have to complement that with some legislation like the gentleman's which will solve or help to solve the flight of the Medicare+Choice providers.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, that is very good news, and I thank the gentleman for continuing to work that bill with the Committee on Commerce, because I have made the pledge to my seniors that I will do everything in my power to get the HMO plus choice providers to stay in our area. That is one of the big problems. Health care in rural areas is short of money, short of resources; and I have worked with local hospitals to fund the blend and to do all of the things that they need to do to remain viable, that is, to keep our medical institutions strong. This bill would help keep a service to our older Americans that live in rural areas that they deserve. I think we will have to be flexible in that, and we will have to make sure that there are enough resources there that the program works. Mr. Speaker, I think there has been nothing since I came to Congress that has been as hard for me to get my arms around as health care has been. Being a businessperson all of my life, I always thought that I could understand any program and put it together very quickly. Well, our health care system is very, very complicated. The rules that administer it under HCFA have grown over a period of time, and some of them need changing. This is one that certainly needs changing, and I thank the gentleman for his efforts; and we will be glad to push that bill through.

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to direct the attention of the House to an alarming trend, denying benefit options to Medicare beneficiaries on the basis of where they live. The Medicare-plus choice program passed by Congress was intended to offer real health care options under Medicare. However, Americans in rural and smaller urban areas are being dropped from plans at an alarming rate. Many beneficiaries in my district have been notified they no longer have the option of enrolling in the Medicare HMO. It is an outrage that many of the disabled Americans and seniors can no longer enroll in a Medicare HMO because of discriminatory payment rates. How can HCFA justify a monthly payment rate in my area of $400, and yet in larger cities of $700 to $800? This discrepancy is not justifiable, it offends my basic sense of fairness, and we must work, Congress and the administration must work together to reverse this trend, and restore the availability of the Medicare-plus choice payment program to all beneficiaries.

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, our eyes are on Camp David, and the focus is on various details, 90 percent, 92 percent, this or that concession. And I think it is important for us to take a step back and to look at the entire panoply. The discussion is land for peace. This is the first time in recorded history when the land for peace equation has meant that the country that has won the wars has been asked to concede land. Mr. Speaker, never has there been such extraordinary love of peace as we see in the people of Israel, willing to make concessions after they have won four wars of defense. We should also note that half the Jewish population of Israel are themselves refugees from Arab states, from Yemen and Iran and from other Islamic countries. There is not even the slightest discussion that these Jewish refugees will receive any compensation. We must admire Israel's love of peace.

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I rise in support of H.R. 728, the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000. First let me congratulate the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and his colleagues, and commend the leadership of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on Agriculture for moving forward with this important legislation. H.R. 728 responds to a growing crisis in water resources infrastructure throughout this Nation. There are over 10,000 dams constructed under national resource conservation service programs; many are in need of critical repair and are presenting flooding and environmental threats to communities. This bill responds in two ways. Title I authorizes NRCS to rehabilitate aging and deteriorating dams constructed under the agency's small watershed program. Title II authorizes the Corps of Engineers to inventory and assess the condition of dams constructed decades ago under other authorities, such as the Work Projects Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, and in the interim, to provide emergency measures to prevent risks to the public. A good example of these aging dams is the Mountain Springs dam right on the edge of my congressional district. It is a dam that has provided flood control and watershed qualities throughout 60 years, and now it is about to be drained because it is deemed dangerous. We need these things attended to. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to emphasize that these projects should be performed in the most cost-effective manner that accomplishes the rehabilitation objective. However, the Secretary is not required to develop a cost benefit ratio analysis or a cost benefit ratio. Mr. Speaker, this bill is about restoring infrastructure, enhancing public safety, and protecting the environment. America's rural communities in particular will benefit. For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support H.R. 728.

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply substitutes the language in Section 606, which contains a 1-year reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with the text of H.R. 2884, which passed the House 416 to 8. This House-passed bill reauthorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve through fiscal year 2003. Additionally, it provides new discretion for the Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from marginal domestic wells known as stripper wells when the average market price falls below $15 per barrel. Finally, it provides new authority for the Secretary of Energy to disburse home heating oil from any future Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve during a national emergency, a regional emergency. The Northeast Heating Oil Reserve, which will be a separate entity from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, will be authorized to contain no more than 2 million barrels of petroleum distillate. Additionally, the reserve may be employed during severe energy disruptions, extreme price hikes, or when the President determines an energy emergency merits its use in the Northeast. The bottom line is that this amendment will help to preserve and enhance our domestic energy-producing infrastructure, and help provide reasonably-priced home heating fuel oil during supply shortages. It is simple, having more domestic oil production and supply capacity will result in lower prices at the pump and less dependence on foreign oil. This last winter we in the Northeast were feeling the economic sting of an oil crisis due to high heating oil and diesel prices. That was our first warning. Now, with severely increased gasoline prices across the Nation, the rest of the country is feeling the pain that we in the Northeast have experienced for several months. The question on everyone's mind is, why did we not see this coming, and why were we not prepared to meet it? I am here today to work with the Members in this Chamber to find the answers to these questions; also, to make sure that we will never be held hostage again by Middle East oil princes. These are the same friends for whom a decade ago we risked the lives of our sons and daughters to protect against Iraqi aggression. The bottom line, and this is probably the most important thing that will be said tonight, is that we lack a coherent national energy policy to insulate us from the volatility of these markets. During the 1998-1999 time frame, our Nation lost 500,000 barrels of production capacity every day due to the failure of marginal stripper wells to be economically viable. This amendment allows the Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from stripper wells when prices are low so they can adequately operate during extreme price drops, and our Nation's new heating oil reserve can be filled more cheaply. This is an excellent bill which will help maintain the Nation's oil production capacity when prices are low, and provide relief to homeowners when heating prices are high and in short supply. I strongly urge the Secretary of Energy to utilize the new authority given him with the establishment of the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve and the reauthorization of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to use these reserves as pressure release valves during energy crises. Support of this measure is a step in the right direction towards solving our current gas price crisis, which we are all suffering through. It is simple: The more domestic oil supply capacity we can maintain, the lower the prices will be at the pump. I urge my colleagues to vote for this bipartisan, prudent, and timely measure so that relief can be brought to the pocketbook of the American consumer. In closing, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for all their hard work in crafting this legislation, and the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) for his leadership on the issue. I urge passage of this very commonsense, bipartisan amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert). (Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this winter we had severe price disruptions in the Northeast that would be almost unbelievable if we had not experienced them. In a period of 60 days, home heating oil, which all the old people depend on in the Northeast, we do not have any gas mains and home heating oil is the heating source of choice, went from 80 cents a gallon to $1.80 a gallon. People could not fund that in their budgets. Diesel fuel for trucks and tractors and farm equipment and snowmobiles and school buses went from $1.30 to $2.60 per gallon. Now, there is no real understandable reason for a price spike of this magnitude. What happened, we had a little shortage and then because there was a shortage, they got speculating on the New York Merc and this price was run up to double its historic record and double what we were expecting for the winter. Mr. Chairman, the purpose of my amendment is to put some things in place that will help this from happening again. If we could keep these stripper wells in production during low-price periods, we will have that much more domestic production. If we can have the Northeast Heating Reserve, that will be some hedge against this happening again. These are things that we need to do. We need to become more self- sufficient. I think that is a much bigger discussion for another day. But we have to look at our drilling policies and find out how we got in this position where we have all of these reserves, but we do not have refinery capacity enough and we do not have drilling capacity enough. We need to look these policies over down the road and develop a very comprehensive energy policy. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is going to be a national debate that is going to take awhile. Tonight might be the start of that. People in my district certainly cannot put in another winter like we had last winter. I do not think people in Chicago want to put in another summer like they are having right now with $2.50 gasoline. We do not want to go back to $2.60 diesel fuel. These are problems that we have got to address. We have got to make sure that we do not have artificial barriers to the movement of product throughout the various regions of the country. The reformulated product for different air quality standards has made it very difficult for the big oil companies to move product from one part of the country to the other, and that leads to regional dislocations like we have in Chicago at the present time. We have to have more refinery capacity. Some of our areas of the country that are complaining about high heating oil prices and high gasoline prices have not allowed refineries to be built. So we have to have a comprehensive discussion that includes the environmentalists, includes the oil companies, includes the consumers and distributors so that we get a comprehensive national oil policy. We are being held hostage now to some items that have come up, because we have not addressed them for the future. It will take awhile, but we cannot just blunder off into the future like we have in the last few years. I think we were lulled to sleep by the fact that world demand was low, and we had historically low oil prices here in the U.S. Because we had historically low oil prices, nobody wanted to do anything about a policy. Well, that bit us this winter. It is biting us this summer. And if we do not get a comprehensive policy, we will continue to have these oil spikes. The two features of my amendment will help. But we need to do more than that. We need to have a comprehensive policy. I appreciate this opportunity this evening to speak on this issue. It is something that we need to continue to discuss, and we need to get our national oil policy that brings all the stakeholders into play so that when this comes together, it will make sense. It will make sense environmentally, and it will make sense to the producers and the consumers in the country.

Mr. SHERWOOD. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lazio).

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of this bipartisan, indeed tripartisan amendment. It does some very important things. It reauthorizes the strategic petroleum reserve through 2003. It is new discretion for the Secretary of Energy to purchase oil from domestic stripper wells when the price falls below $15, and it is new discretion for the Secretary of Energy to disburse home heating oil for many future Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserves upon a regional emergency. But more than that, we need to keep alive this bipartisan debate of how we will have a coherent energy policy in this country, the drilling, the refining, the production, and the distribution so that we will not be held hostage again. People do not want to put up with this forever. There is no reason in this country that we have to. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3417) to complete the orderly withdrawal of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration from the civil administration of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, as amended.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), introduced H.R. 3417, the Pribilof Islands Transition Act, following a hearing on the ongoing transition of the communities of St. Paul and Saint George, Alaska, from Federal to private ownership. St. Paul and Saint George are located on isolated islands in the Bering Sea that are also the breeding grounds of the north Pacific fur seal. The islands were settled when Russian fur seal traders forcibly kidnapped, relocated, and enslaved native Alaskan Aleuts to continue to conduct fur seal harvests. This bill provides payments to the municipal governments, village corporations, and tribal councils on the islands. This money will compensate them for the funds they spent to build harbors and to repair and replace transferred property that was inadequate to provide public service. The bill also authorizes funds to complete the environmental cleanup of the mess the government left on the islands during its 120 year reign. Finally, the bill establishes what NOAA must do before its responsibilities on the islands are terminated. This bill makes good on our promises to a group of Native Americans. I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 3417. Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a communication from the chairman of the Committee on Resources to the ranking member of the committee. U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, June 26, 2000. Hon. George Miller, Ranking Democratic Member, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Miller: The purpose of H.R. 3417 is to complete the transition of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, from being a ward of the state to being an independent and, hopefully, successful community with the same independent responsibilities of any other community in the United States. The bill establishes the parameters for ending the special relationship between National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Pribilofs. After all the actions required in this legislation are taken, it is my intention that NOAA will not be expected to have any responsibilities to the communities on the Pribilof Islands in addition to those that it would have to any other community in the United States. The Pribilof Islands, St. Paul and St. George, are located in the Bering Sea 800 miles west-southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. The Islands are the breeding grounds of the North Pacific Fur Seal. The Islands were discovered in 1786 by Russian explorers who were searching for the fur seal breeding grounds. To exploit the fur seals for their pelts, the Russians relocated and enslaved Aleuts from islands that lie to the south. These Native Alaskans were experienced seal hunters, and the pelts were tremendously valuable in China, Russia, and Europe. When the Federal Government acquired Alaska in 1867, the purchase included the Pribilof Islands. In 1868, the Islands were declared to be a special Federal Reserve for purposes of management and preservation of fur seals and other fur- bearing species. The Federal Government contracted with private firms for the harvest of fur seals and the Aleuts continued to conduct the harvests as employees of these firms. It is estimated that the Federal Government's portion of the profit from the fur seal trade paid for the purchase price of Alaska in roughly 20 years. Later the government ran the fur seal harvests directly, but never allowed other business interests to develop on the Islands. By 1983, the fur seal harvest and the profits to the Federal government had diminished dramatically, but Federal expenditures on the Islands had risen to $6.3 million annually. NOAA estimates that 95 percent of those expenditures were for municipal and social services. After negotiations with the Administration, Congress adopted the Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983. These amendments adopted a scheme proposed by NOAA to complete the government withdrawal activities on the Island that were not related to fur seal management. NOAA Administrator Anthony J. Calio best laid out this scheme in a November 1, 1982, letter to all Island residents. This letter states: ``To ensure a smooth transition and to foster development of a new and expanded economic base, [NOAA] propose[s] to provide a one-time payment of $20 million, to be placed in trust, which will provide you with the resources necessary for general community expenses during the interim period, as well as working capital so badly needed for economic development. . . . ``As you know, harbor facilities will be vital to the success of your efforts to establish a viable economic base. In order for our proposal to be successful, we must have assurance of State [of Alaska] support for these harbor facilities. The proposed $20 million fund is contingent on a firm State commitment. . . . ``The National Marine Fisheries Service has substantial property holdings on the Islands. [NOAA] propose[s] to transfer this property, with a few exceptions, . . . , to the Islands. In the future, community and municipal services will be provided by Island organizations, and this property, which includes land, buildings, equipment and supplies, it vital to the provision of such services. ``Under [the NOAA] proposal, the Islands would be responsible for conducting the annual seal harvest and for the associated marketing of the seal skins. To assure the long-term success of this effort, we will provide all resources needed to conduct the 1983 harvest. Commencing in 1983 all [U.S. shares of] skins, seals and byproducts . . . will belong to the Islanders and when sold should provide you with the resources needed to successfully conduct future harvests. . . . ``The phase out of the Pribilof Islands Program will significantly reduce associated Federal jobs. We would except some of these jobs would naturally transfer to the Island- operated seal harvest and marketing and for the provision of Island services. During the harbor facility construction period, we can foresee many employment opportunities and once the fishing or other industries come on line, job possibilities should expand significantly.'' A Memorandum of Intent signed by Calio and Island leaders were also included with this letter. This memorandum states: ``The parties hereto recognize the State of Alaska's appropriation of the monies necessary to construct boat harbors on St. Paul and St. George Island . . . is an indispensable contribution to achieving the goal of self sufficiency on the Pribilof Islands.'' Administrator Calio also laid out this plan in May 19, 1983, testimony on H.R. 2840, an Administration-drafted bill to provide for the orderly termination of Federal management of the Pribilof Islands before the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. He stated the NOAA proposal, which was reflected in the bill, would ``Create a $20 million fund to replace annual Federal appropriations which, when combined with a state initiative to construct harbors on both islands, would give the Pribilovians the resources needed to make the transition to a self-sustaining economy; to transfer most real and personal property owned by the Federal Government to the islanders; to transfer responsibility for the fur seal harvest to the islanders; and to help the islanders get job training.'' Later in that testimony he again reiterated the importance of harbor construction to the success of this scheme, when he said, ``The transfer of Federal property on the islands and the appropriation of the $20 million, in concert with State contributions for the construction of harbors on each island, will give the Pribilovians the unique opportunity to develop a diversified and enduring economy.'' The State of Alaska also testified at that hearing. The State witness made clear that, though Governor Sheffield had requested $10.4 million for harbor construction, those funds had not been approved and may not be sufficient to complete the projects even if approved. The State also noted that: ``. . . given the checkered history of the Federal Government's relationship to the Pribilovians, there is a moral if not legal obligation that should not be overlooked. ``. . . we perceive the conception that the State of Alaska will simply fill the void created by the Federal Government's abrupt departure. We can make no such commitment . . . the economic, social and infrastructure requirements of the Pribilofs are immense . . . ``. . . the Federal Government must be willing to upgrade existing facilities to minimum State health and safety standards.'' The Fur Seal Act Amendments of 1983 were adopted. The Federal Government did create and fund the $20 million Trust Fund. The State of Alaska did not commit to, nor did it fund, construction of new harbors on the Islands. Real and personal property has been transferred by the Federal Government, but the municipalities maintain that it failed to meet the Islands public infrastructure needs. In 1984, the Senate failed to ratify the Fur Seal Treaty, thus ending fur seal harvests. Since three legs of the stool failed, most of the $20 million was used to fund harbor construction, infrastructure repair and replacement, and social benefit needs. This delayed the development of a self-sufficient economy on the Islands. In 1976, NOAA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with TDX and Tanaq which identified the tracts of property the government intended to retain. Under Section 3(e) of ANCSA, the government was directed to retain the ``smallest practicable tracts enclosing land actually used in connection with the administration of a Federal installation.'' Therefore, the MOU served to let the village corporations know which lands were unavailable for selection under ANCSA. Pursuant to Section 205 of the 1983 Amendments, NOAA entered into a Transfer of Property Agreement with the municipal governments, village corporations and tribal councils on the Islands and the State of Alaska to receive a portion of the property that was originally scheduled to be retained by NOAA. This agreement has withstood a court challenge, and most of the property has been transferred. Unfortunately, environmental contamination on much of the property has prevented the highest and best economic use of the land, and in other cases delayed the transfer altogether. NOAA and the State of Alaska signed the Pribilof Islands Environmental Restoration Agreement (Two Party Agreement). This document in conjunction with the cleanup requirements set forth in Public Law 104-91 govern NOAA's ongoing cleanup. It is clear that the failure to construct harbors, transfer property, complete the environmental cleanup, or provide adequate municipal infrastructure, and the elimination of revenue from the fur seal harvest doomed to failure the transition scheme laid out by NOAA and adopted by Congress in 1983. To make good on the 1983 commitments, H.R. 3417 provides additional resources to the Islanders, and sets out the terms under which NOAA non-fur seal management responsibilities end. The bill provides grants to Island entities and grants to the State to construct solid waste management facilities. The bill also terminates NOAA's economic and municipal responsibilities after it has obligated whatever funds are appropriated for the authorized grants, completed the environmental cleanup, and transferred property under the TOPA. I hope this letter clarifies for you the reason for, and intent of, H.R. 3417. I appreciate your support for this legislation. Sincerely, Don Young, Chairman, Committee on Resources. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks, and to include extraneous material on H.R. 3417, the bill now under consideration.

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

Mr. SHERWOOD

Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3023) to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to convey property to the Greater Yuma Port Authority of Yuma County, Arizona, for use as an international port of entry, as amended.